E Unus Pluribum

Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe paid a leisurely visit to Tripoli this week for a warm tête-à-tête meeting with his Libyan counterpart, Colonel Muammar Qaddafi. On the agenda? Qaddafi's favorite topic, of course: African unity. What did two of Africa's longest serving dictators propose? Why, uniting the entire continent under a single government for the purpose of "solving [Africa's] own problems". You don't have to guess too hard what it means when a pair of utterly unrepentant dictators are both calling for when they suggest ruling an entire continent under a single government.

To western ears at least, the phrase "African unity" has a peculiarly soothing ring to it to western ears. To American ears in particular, applying the word "unity" to "Africa" conjures up images of "problems" solved by "togetherness", even though both are hopelessly ignorant misconceptions. The first misconception is that there's some sort of monolithically identifiable entity of "Africa" that is universally hungry, poor and maladjusted. The second notion is that this place would somehow become "fixed" if only there could be "unity". Both notions are complete rubbish.

Africa is a mix of many nations and even more peoples. Some of them are together by choice, but most are not. The borders of most modern African nations were hobbled together by 19th century European technocrats half a world away, with practically no concern for whom they wished to associate with, or how they wished to lead their lives. Some nations have managed to make these curious new artificial nation states work. After all, if Belgium can do it then why can't Kenya? More often, however, this is not the case, nor should it be the case. Because there are so many "Africas" and countless different African peoples, no single possible government could ever hope to represent them all.

Africa, unlike the United States or Australia or China, does not have a single dominant culture, political tradition, or even a common language. This was the case in Africa before European colonialism, during colonialism, and will continue to be the case well after colonialism in Africa passes from living memory. In our frenzy to deny a pluralistic identity to people in Africa, we are essentially infantilizing an entire continent. There is no more a pan-African identity than there is a pan-Asian one, or pan-American one. Frankly, heterogeneity has a far better track record than artificial unity. Many have tried to cobble such an identity together, but have invariably failed, and usually for reasons they don't even seem to be able to understand. I'll give them a hint. Identity and culture transcend mere incidental geography, and the individual is naturally resistant to being subsumed into a group. In other words, "it would be nice if you'd ask us if we even want your artificial unity".

If your next door neighbor were a con-artist, would you open a joint checking account with him? Of course not. So I'm not clear how anyone in their right mind would still hang on to the "African unity" shibboleth when the greatest and most visible supporters of the concept just happen to be dictators like Qaddafi and Mugabe.

Status quo maintained for Arab dictator duo

There was a small burst of excitement from Libya where unconfirmed reports from a Palestinian news agency stated that the venerable Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi had suffered a stroke and gone into a coma. Now the ever nattily attired Colonel Qaddafi has not only declared that not only is he alive and well, but that he intends to sue the reporters who released the story. In a bizarre news conference in Tripoli, Qaddafi vowed vengeance, declaring bombastically, "the one who fires at you, you should fire at him too. The one who tells you 'I am your enemy', consider yourself his enemy."

Whatever the hell that means.

In other news, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad wants the world to know he's just getting comfortable running the family business. Since assuming power after the death of his father, the bloodthirsty Hafez al-Assad, Bashar al-Assad has had a somewhat tough time of things. All that work his father put into turning Lebanon into a satellite state? That turned out badly, no thanks to Junior. However, a family dictatorship is still a dictatorship, and one bad turn deserves another. So when the Syrian Ba'ath Party nominated Bashar al-Assad to run for a second 7 year term as President, we here at Dictators of the World congratulated al-Assad, knowing that the May 27th popular election is a mere cynical exercise in ballot box stuffing. Frankly, since al-Assad is the only candidate on the ballot, one wonders: why is this election even required as a formality?

Dictator duo disinterestedly discuss Darfur

I've vented my spleen on more than one occasion about the "international community's" pathetic response to and assertions about the Darfur disaster, especially the failure of anyone to adapt a negotiating strategy that recognizes that Omar al-Bashir of Sudan is a dictator instead of, say, the Prime Minister of Belgium. Dealing with autocrats requires a different approach than dealing with with democratically elected politicians. Frankly, you have to speak their language. Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak and Libyan strongman Colonel Muammar Qaddafi understand this perfectly, and held an impromptu Darfur crisis summit meeting with one another in Tripoli.

As one might expect, Mubarak and Qaddafi had a chat on Darfur that proved they understand a dictator's language, insofar as it urges the rest of the world to get off of Omar al-Bashir's back and focus on bringing the rebel armies fighting against Bashir "to the negotiating table". However, Mubarak and Qaddafi made it immediately clear they wouldn't press al-Bashir to do anything he hasn't already promised to do. Which is good, since the last thing Omar al-Bashir needs right now is yet another set of cheap promises he'll have to find ways to ignore down the road. Both Mubarak and Qaddafi are vaguely concerned about the violence in Sudan spilling over into their fiefdoms, but frankly, they appear to be much more concerned about the rest of the world taking dictatorships to task for shoddy, violent, and unaccountable rule. Why is everyone giving us a such a hard time, they appear to be saying, just shut the hell up and let us do our thing!

If, on the other hand, Mubarak or Qaddafi happened to be at war with Sudan, they'd shift to a dictator's other natural dialect, about the need to totally annihilate Omar al-Bashir, and how nothing on earth will get them to the negotiating table. As it just so happens, neither dictator has any particular beef with al-Bashir. They're all members of the Arab League in good standing. None of them have any territorial disputes with one another, and hey, they all resent the "neo-colonialism" of smug, holier-than-thou European Union do gooders, human rights organizations, and other such douchebags telling third world leaders how to act, or worse, linking things like foreign aid to their human rights record. Given that the aforementioned douchebags are all screaming about Sudan right now, it would be impossible for Mubarak and Qaddafi not to sympathize immediately. Dictators don't have trade unions to represent their interests, but it usually isn't too hard to find one or more dictators banding together to stick up for a beleaguered tyrant when he's facing tough times. The idea that Qaddafi and Mubarak had any ideas better suited towards providing a plan with an outcome geared towards relieving the misery of the people of Darfur instead of the unimpeded right of Omar al-Bashir to do whatever the hell he wants is a complete non-starter as far as they're concerned.

I will give Mubarak and Qaddafi credit, however, for matching their desires openly with the expected outcome. Omar al-Bashir is, in fact, going to do whatever the hell he wants, anyway, and there's nothing Egypt or Libya will do to stop him. At least al-Bashir's fellow dictators won't be attending any ridiculous candlelight vigils or hypocritically wringing their hands about how the "inaction of the world community" is at fault. They know Omar al-Bashir calls the shots in Darfur, and they're comfortable with that. Now, if only one of the countries that talks about how concerned they are about Darfur would learn to speak to Omar al-Bashir like a dictator, and threaten him to get results? Well ... that might just work.

That just wouldn't be fair, now would it?

Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi redefined irony this week in a rare public speaking appearance, during which he characterized representative democracy and global free trade economics as "dictatorship".

On the subject of representative democracy, Libya's "Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution" claimed that representative democracy equates to the "dictatorship of the 51%", adding:

51 percent - this is not democracy. That means 49 percent is against the winner.

While the Colonel's math skills are reasonably sharp, there are many people who could quibble with his perception of democracy. Since seizing power in a military coup d'etat in 1969, Qaddafi has been the uncontested ruler of Libya, and has kept power thanks to a well funded and utterly ruthless secret police and a pervasive personality cult that outlaws any criticism of him or his rule.

To his credit, the Colonel has avoided the "dictatorship of the 51%" by opting for a dictatorship of one man - himself. And while he has sought to rehabilitate his image of late, there is absolutely no question of him stepping down from power, or even (may Allah forbid!) expanding social or political freedoms in Libya. After all, that would risk creating the dreaded dictatorship of the 51%, and that just wouldn't be fair, now would it?